Plaintiffs in Michigan travel ban case filed their opposition to the gov't motion for a stay (see: https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/feds-ask-supreme-court-to-allow-enforcement-of-trumps?utm_term=.kc6YjZoX3k#.qyQJdq0Yxz …), and it's lit.
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Here it is: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3766459-AACRL-v-Trump-Opposition-to-Stay-Request.html …pic.twitter.com/54zBHkq286
3 replies 23 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Plaintiffs: No basis to stay MI case "merely b/c Defendants hope the Supreme Court will not only intervene," but resolve the case entirely.pic.twitter.com/NhjKuNDx56
1 reply 8 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
"To say that the litigation of the Executive Orders has not been going well for Defendants is an understatement."pic.twitter.com/7QWMAUK1Gu
1 reply 17 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Plaintiffs: Feds were wrong about the 4th Circuit, "& they do not even pretend to offer any support for that self-serving proclamation now."pic.twitter.com/qfCY96go8Y
1 reply 6 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
The plaintiffs go on to explain how, even if the Supreme Court granted the IRAP case, it would not resolve all the issues in the Mich. case.
2 replies 3 retweets 7 likes
The underlying issue here is the discovery being sought by the plaintiffs in the Michigan case—including the Giuliani memo re: travel ban.
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
The plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel the disclosure of the Giuliani memo; feds are fighting in multiple ways to shut that down.
4 replies 16 retweets 28 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.